Looking at the many valuable comments in the latest open thread, it’s amazing how many ways the BBC have found to get at George Osborne in recent days. Speaking from what I have seen, it was noticeable how Marr stacked his progamme this morning with better-then-average lefties like Doug Alexander and Dr John Reid (plus Jarvis Cocker for leftist chic), to foreground a lengthy interview with Osborne which began with the line from Marr: “Do you think your job is on the line this weekend?”
Sums it all up really- not the reality, that is, but the BBC’s preferred narrative. Alexander- the Secretary of State for International Development- was there to demonstrate how (in accordance with the Brown narrative) the crisis is global, first, and we are the victims, second, while John Reid was there to show how he was burying the hatchet and uniting behind Brown and to blame Osborne for not doing the same.
In fact Osborne performed superbly on the Marr programme, so despite Marr’s repeated attempts to bring up the world crisis in defending Brown, Osborne swept past him. Yet is he actually winning this argument? Difficult to say, because the BBC has so relentlessly depicted him as on the defensive, the “George Osborne under attack” meme. This has been partly justified by bringing up a so-called convention regarding commenting on Sterling which, as the commenters at B-BBC have noted, is bogus. Meanwhile David in the comments points to this article as a related note, where Brown “regrets” Osborne’s comments highlighting the risk to the pound. Surely in fact Brown regrets that his economic incompetence is being exposed? It is no good his shaking his head over that unpublic-spirited Osborne- it is Brown who has been frantically trying to look competent in situations he has been instrumental in creating. So far he has done only the most obvious things, like bail out faltering banks, huddle with world leaders and pronounce “routemaps” as he poses for photos.
Earlier I saw an BBC online article where Gordon was shown in a decidedly odd picture (actually used above) at the G20 meeting towering over the Russian President, the Russian’s eyes upraised to meet Gordon’s (ie. where on earth was Gordon standing in relation to Medvedev? [Update: apparently Medvedev is unusually small. This does not explain the particular photo with Gordon facing the camera and Medvedev looking up to his eyes, or indeed the very choice of this photo- why these two men and only them? Generally I think the BBC’s photo-story-telling is abysmal]). In a more sensible world Brown wouldn’t even have been able to take the reins of the Government a year and a half ago because his incompetence over boom and bust would have already been made apparent by a sentient fourth estate (Labour’s favourite bank Northern Rock was melting away as they feted Gordon). Instead, those who have the temerity to question the inevitably compromised economic wisdom of Gordon Brown are put in the media dock by the BBC-led media.
Meanwhile, Guido points to yet another angleof BBC bias in favour of Brown.
The BBC hate the “nasty Tory party”, the BBC want Labour to stay in power forever, therefore the BBC will take any opportunity to destroy any Conservative politician that they can. There is no point in pointing out their bias to ourselves, they don’t care and the bias will get stronger in the run up to next spring’s surprise general election.
Ed: Have you considered that the Dear Leader did to Medvedev what he did to the UK for ages? He likely dug him a hole… 🙂
Just listened to the Chancellor on “The World this Weekend”. Ideal opportunity for the beeboid to ask him his view on why the pound has slid 25% recently. That would have been a service to us all to hear that but the subject was only briefly mentioned by the beeboid on the way to lobbing him the inevitable “What about George Osborne”.
Despite headline appearances the other 19 seem to have agreed to do what they think best for themselves, not quite the ringing endorsement of Gordon’s spend and borrow plans for us. The Chancellor suggested this must all be balanced out in the “medium” term. Did the beeboid ask him to define the medium term when we all have to start paying back everything GB is going to splurge now – of course not.
One can see the Chancellor turn to his aides after the interview and say something like “Thank God the BBC are on-side – that could have been really tricky”.
Apparently the BBC in its reporting of ‘economist’ Brown, thinks he should be given a blank cheque – financially and politically.
Osborne, reasonably disagrees:
‘George Osborne: Ore Reckless PM is leading us down the road to ruin’
[Extract]:
“The value of the pound moves daily in both directions on the currency markets. But the trend is clear, and the run on the pound in recent months has been dramatic and sharper than anything we saw in the previous Labour devaluations of the 1960s and 1970s, or even the year after the exit from the ERM. We have witnessed a near 30 per cent fall in the value of sterling, a larger and more sudden fall than any other major currency. More strikingly still, the international markets are now demanding almost double the risk premium for British government debt than they demand for German government debt. That’s a sure sign of the global lack of confidence in British government policy. Falling sterling ultimately means pressure for higher long-term inflation and higher long-term interest rates.” (G.Osborne).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1601.xml
Ed,
Get Osbourne is indeed the name of the game and the Bee are leading the charge. I have covered this on ATW over the past few days and it is clear, as Gerald Brown points out, no tough questions can be posed to Brown/Darling, it’s a predetermined agenda the rancid Beeb are following. I am NOT a fan of Osbourne but I do feel sorry for way in which he is taking so much crap from the State Broadcaster.
In contrast to the BBC’s treatment of Tory shadow Minister, George Osborne, the BBC leaves ‘enforcer’ Labour Cabinet Minister, LIAM BYRNE, well alone, despite this:
“Gordon Brown’s control freak enforcer and his ‘cappuccino and soup’ instruction manual for civil servants”
By Brendan Carlin:
[Opening extract]:
” Gordon Brown’s new Cabinet enforcer has issued an astonishing 11-page document to civil servants spelling out exactly how they should treat him.
“In a series of detailed instructions that would embarrass the most demanding showbiz diva, Cabinet Office Minister Liam Byrne tells officials precisely what types of coffee he likes, and just when the drink should be served; exactly how his office should be laid out, with papers arranged just so; and how his diary must be cleared by Thursday evening so he can return to his constituency home for the weekend.
“The document, modestly entitled ‘Working With Liam Byrne’, reads like a script from the BBC’s political sitcom ‘The Thick Of It’ about the farcical control-freakery of New Labour in power.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086162/Gordon-Browns-control-freak-enforcer-cappuccino-soup-instruction-manual-civil-servants.html
Byrne has a pretty high opinion of himself doesn’t he! Lets hope when he is out of office and seeking employment he gets treated in the same manner.
How do his servants take him seriously?
New Labour have certainly won in the control of the media – instead of questioning the Great leaders policies on the economy they attack anyone who criticises it. Its truly unbelievable.
This really is totalitarianism in the making.
The BBC and most of the other media has totally set Osbourne up with this stirling story. When the pound innevitably falls again next week who is going to get the blame for it? It’s perfect for the lefties. The Tories aren’t even in power and will be blamed for our currency going tits up. And the average numbnut voter on the street will fall for it.
Is the BBC implying that only Labour should be allowed to comment on the fall in the value of the pound sterling- which Labour doesn’t do?
A recent ‘Bloomberg’ report on UK exchange rates and the economy:
“Pound falls to record low versus Euro; Cuts signaled”
[Extract]:
— “The pound dropped to a record low against the euro and breached $1.50 for the first time since 2002 after the Bank of England indicated it will keep reducing interest rates as the economy slumps.
“The pound also fell versus the Japanese yen and Swiss franc after the central bank said the economy will shrink through most of next year and inflation will slow `well below’ the 2 percent target. A government report today showed unemployment claims rose to the highest level since March 2001, adding to evidence the economy is deteriorating. The pound traded above $2 as recently as July 23.
“`The bleak outlook for the economy has led to a lot of disappointment and that’s putting pressure on the pound,’ said Lutz Karpowitz, a currency strategist in Frankfurt at Commerzbank AG, Germany’s second-biggest lender. `Whichever way you look at it, there’s no good news from the U.K.'”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=az.ciqn9DKoI&refer=home
The big question is: how on earth did the leader of UKIP end up running Russia?
Compare:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5338364.stm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Medvedev
If the PM is reading the Wall Street Journal over breakfast this morning, he may suffer a sudden loss of appetite.
The WSJ leader savages GB’s plan for a globally co-ordinated fiscal stimulus, suggesting that the only thing likely to be stimulated by such a move is the PM’s approval ratings.
The paper is equally unimpressed with GB’s plan for an international college of supervisors to oversee the global economy.
As Nick Robinson discusses, the PM’s ideas are well received by many here, but the praise is clearly far from universal.
Adam Boulton Blog on Sky.
———————————–
Brilliant, and could I find any negative comments on the BBC…..could I f…!
They’re very nasty to Atlas on guido. poor show.
A few points i’d make.
First, guido’s quote does not seem to be evidence of Robinson supporting Brown; rather a hint at his perfidy.
Second, see conservative home for evidence that the tory base is not happy with osborne and wants rid. not just a labour confection. there is a story here.
third, sky – adam boulton – are chasing this story in a similar manner to the bbc. why wouldn’t you? all media orgs are.
third, sky – adam boulton – are chasing this story in a similar manner to the bbc. why wouldn’t you? all media orgs are.
mikewineliberal | 16.11.08 – 5:38 pm | #
————————————–
mikewineliberal,
Interesting viewpoint, my point was that outside of the westminster village, Mr Brown reputation is not so good, the WSJ is only one example of negative articles about his handling of the current economic downturn.
Yet, I cannot find any links to the numerous articles slating Mr Brown on the BBC’s website, however, I can find my links attacking a Mr G Osbourne for doing his job as the Shadow Chancellor.
I live and work during the week in the Netherlands, after reading the Dutch & German newspapers, the comments about his current performance are not flattering, they cannot understand why he thinks he is somehow rescuing the global economy, I suppose that in whatever reality Mr Brown resides he is some sort of super being!.
mwl- as usual you raise this issue about other media. We have the same disagreement as ever, it seems. The BBC is the UK media leader by virtue of its ability to maintain its position irrespective of market share, and with its public service function guaranteeing it so many privileges and the audience to go along with that.
What one notices about Sky as a general rule is that they steer just a little to the right of the BBC- not enough to get a Fox-like bad press, but just enough to skim the BBC’s disaffected serious viewers. This way Sky cannot lose, but their course is effectively determined by the BBC’s lead (the BBC can’t lose their audience indefinitely and can in any case afford to do so temporarily).
Thus your point about Sky’s coverage is next to spurious.
Is the BBC’s use of Medvedev-Brown photo a desperate ruse to try to raise the stature of Brown?
Apparently Medvedev’s height is 5′-4″. Perhaps on all foreign trips, Brown should seach out Medvedev for the photo-shoots.
In the UK, perhaps Brown should search out Ms. Blears, for the photo-shoots. According to the ‘Guardian’, she is “barely 5 ft. tall”.
Presumably, Labour Cabinet Minister enforcer, Liam Byrne, is taking notes on all this. With the BBC’s chum, Alistair Campbell?
If you can’t get a job at the BBC, you go to Sky. Every lefty media employee knows that.
Kill the Beeb 6:17 pm.
And if you’re at the BBC with its woolly ‘multiculturalism’ and pro-Islamism, it easy to get a job at Al Jazeera English, as scores of ex-Beeboids are proud to prove.
ed – to argue a point on this site, it is not spurious to cite the other news broadcasters to show there is little difference between
them in the way a specific story is covered. the reason is obvious: unlike the debate among right wing types in the US, which is about liberal bias in the msm as a whole, the debate here singles out one broadcaster for treatment, arguing it in particular is in hock to the govt/left wing values. thus if, as I often do, I am able to show other broadcasters covering a story in a similar fashion, it’s a rather good way of skewering an argument that the bbc is showing bias beyond the norm. the traditional response is that the bbc needs to be particularly impartial because of the licence fee. this may be an ideal, but is not the reality in regulatory terms.
so I fear it’s a tack I will continue to take.
A HAVE YOUR SAY for Beeboids?:
If you had to leave the BBC for another broadcaster, each offering the same post, to the same country, on the same pay and conditions as each other, which of these two broadcasting organisations would you prefer to work for:
Either
1.) Al Jazeera English,
Or
2.) Fox News ?
MWL wrote: “if, as I often do, I am able to show other broadcasters covering a story in a similar fashion, it’s a rather good way of skewering an argument that the bbc is showing bias beyond the norm. the traditional response is that the bbc needs to be particularly impartial because of the licence fee. this may be an ideal, but is not the reality in regulatory terms.”
Couple of things. Firstly, I agree with those who say the BBC needs to be whiter than white. If they are not required to be by law then simply put the law is wrong, as the BBC has the resources to do so free of commercial forces, and has influence based on the perception that it has that remit.
Secondly I question what you mean by the “norm” and how reasonable that is as a starting point for media balance.
The norm is in many ways determined by the BBC.
Thirdly, it is your usual practice simply to say that Sky or whoever covers the issue similarly to the BBC. On this site we tend to be able to put a range of BBC coverage into focus and explore the general context of their coverage. You don’t generally attempt that for Sky. I have watched a lot of Sky in the past, and I regularly check their coverage. In context they are not as biased towards any side as the BBC. Whenever I check what they actually cover that you compare with the BBC, I find that in specific and key details they are less geared to supporting left-leaning causes.
Apparently Medvedev’s height is 5′-4″. Perhaps on all foreign trips, Brown should seach out Medvedev for the photo-shoots.
Sure, some people practise height discrimination, but do you want to be pandering to them?
Evan Davies and Nic Robinson on the Toady Programme last week tried to crucify Osborne over the £ issue.
Imagine their surprise in the next interview when an executive of the Work Council (not sure if this is correct wording) stated that £200 billion of foreign money left UK in September – October and that this contributed to the low valuation.
So international investment is not impressed with Broon’s economic miracle and political resurrection.
Bet they had to burn the midnight oil at the Toady Programme to hide these facts in the future.
“third, sky – adam boulton – are chasing this story in a similar manner to the bbc. why wouldn’t you? all media orgs are.”
Because the unique way the BBC is funded means it doesn’t have to.
“the traditional response is that the bbc needs to be particularly impartial because of the licence fee. this may be an ideal, but is not the reality in regulatory terms.”
Exactly,that is why we complain
“so I fear it’s a tack I will continue to take.”
The definition of insanity,repeatedly doing th same thing and expecting a different result.
I kind of agree with Mike on this one. I couldn’t believe it when Sky News – which, unlike BBC News, is a serious news organisation – had a segment entitled, ‘Should Osborne go?’ They had two commentators on who were both saying, No, the Pound has lost 1/3 of its value in a few months, this is important and he was bright to bring it up. But even so.
I long since gave up watching the BBC news in favour of Sky but even there, I find a certain anti Tory bias – particularly in their handling of the Osbourne story. Doesn’t Boulton have some kind of connection to Broon via a relationship with one of his `little helpers’?
Sky’s coverage of the second coming of the Obamessiah was also pretty dismal.
It is also worthwhile remembering that the BBC made Osborne the issue.Once the hue and cry was up,others had to follow the story.
Staggering logic there from the troll, WWL: because ZaNuLabour-supporting Sky is biased, that makes it acceptable for the BBC to behave in the same way.
the bbc needs to be particularly impartial because of the licence fee. this may be an ideal, but is not the reality in regulatory terms.
I agree with whitewine liberal up to the last three words. Not only is it the ideal it is a legal requirement of the BBC Charter and the ONLY reason that the BBC can retain its funding from the taxpayer.
If the BBC continues in its current mode of action it simply becomes a propaganda tool of the governemnt paid for by a tax on the public.
This is neither morally nor legally acceptable
Don’t be too hard on mwl. He told us the other day that the BBC are not impartial on Iraq/Afghanistan because they pursue a line different to the Labour Government. He does however seem to believe that BBBC only exists to expose party political bias whereas bias on any storyline by the BBC is to be deplored. In their position they should not be pursuing “lines” on anything just reporting the news but they just can’t seem to be satisfied with that.
Indeed, GB – though the BBC displays naked party political bias on a routine basis, that is by no means the full extent of its problems. One of its greatest sins is the ‘liberal’ ‘progressive’ bias, which is far from a party issue. Then again, there is the absurd lop-sidedness of its stance on AGW.
Even if the BBC wasn’t regularly shilling for ZaNuLabour, it would still deserve closing down for its cultural weather making.
So yet again the fat one eyed twat is going to give billions away to the unemployed and chav community at the expense of those of us that pay taxes.
Fatso assumes that giving this scum money (presumably to go and buy fags and strong lager) will somehow boost the economy.
Yet again the fat one eyed one is going to end up with the same mess he got himself into over the 10p tax rate. Millions of low paid workers are single and don’t get any form of benefits.
I’m sure the BBC will back McFat twat though.
Martin.
Odius Maximus is borrowing £30,000,000,000 to pay for bread and circuses to get himself re-elected.
The ego of Brown is gigantic,the tosser this he is worth £30 billion.
^^^ David H; I think Boulton is married to a Labour advisor.
married to anji hunter, ex head of blair’s political office.
gerald – I pointed out to you the other day that I said nothing of the sort.
?
…or should that be ‘married to anji hunter, former head of comms at oil giant, BP’?
Mikewineliberal
At 4.11pm on 13.11.08 on the “Prosecuting the war” strand you said “And if the BBC is so cravenly pro-Government why is it trying to PUSH A LINE (my caps) on Iraq and Afghanistan that is the antithesis of the government policy”
Are you now trying to say that by “pushing a line” on something that the BBC can be considered impartial on that subject???
Why does the BBC need to have a “line” on anything? To so do on any subject means that the BBC cannot be considered impartial on that subject!
There should be an immediate enquiry into the BBC’s part in the ‘get Osborne’ campaign.
If senior BBC political correspondents or editors are colluding with Labour’s spin doctors, they should be sacked.
gerald – I was refering to assertions earlier in the thread, not my own
view. I was pointing out the incompatibility of one view with the other, not saying I agreed with either.
I just think Medvedev or whatever his name is thinking what most of us are thinking “what a fucking ugly twat”
mikewineliberal
Looked back through the strand and cannot immediately locate the source, other than you, of the BBC pushing a line on Iraq etc. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
It is a very good point and doublessly true and was, I thought, a sign that there was hope for you yet.
Mr Thomas,
Would it be possible to get a caption competition for the Medvedev,Gordon “propeller beanie” Brown? The expression on Medvedev’s face speaks volumes,what is he thinking?
I’ll begin with something mild.
“We’ve got a right one here”.
These leaders are all evil, and the fact that the liberal illuminati want to trust them is beyond wrong.